God's Kingdom on Earth

[felix]

This reply begs the question - you presume that these two prophecies have not already been fulfilled.

I do not reject the fact that God rules over everything.

However, God created man to rule the earth (Gen1:28), man delivered it to Satan by disobeying God (Luke 4:6). Now, God sent a 'Man' to take that rule back to mankind (Rev 3:21).

Satan is just a created being who still need to report to God (Job 1:6).

 

[Drew]

(Mark 14:25) "Assuredly, I say to you, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God."

There are two problems:

1. You do not engage my argument and shows where it is mistaken - you make an entirely different argument to support your position. Even if you provided an argument here that was convincing to a reader - which you do not (see point 2) - that same reader needs to understand why my argument is wrong. Otherwise, the reader will see one "for" and one "against" argument re the question as to whether the kingdom is here now. Posters make this mistake often - they forget that in order to establish their position, they need to deal with all counter-arguments (and not just make their own arguments).

2. I do not see how this statement denies the present reality of the kingdom of Jesus on earth right now. Can you explain please?

 

[Drew]

I do not reject the fact that God rules over everything.

However, God created man to rule the earth (Gen1:28), man delivered it to Satan by disobeying God (Luke 4:6). Now, God sent a 'Man' to take that rule back to mankind (Rev 3:21).

Satan is just a created being who still need to report to God (Job 1:6).

I do not understand your point here.

Yes, Satan did rule the earth. But, as of the cross, Jesus rules the earth - remember that Jesus asserts that all authority on earth has already been given to Him. i see no argument here that supports the notion that Satan is "king" or "ruler" right now.

Can you explain how Jesus can already have all authority on earth and not be its king?

 

[felix]

There are two problems:

1. You do not engage my argument and shows where it is mistaken - you make an entirely different argument to support your position. Even if you provided an argument here that was convincing to a reader - which you do not (see point 2) - that same reader needs to understand why my argument is wrong. Otherwise, the reader will see one "for" and one "against" argument re the question as to whether the kingdom is here now. Posters make this mistake often - they forget that in order to establish their position, they need to deal with all counter-arguments (and not just make their own arguments).

2. I do not see how this statement denies the present reality of the kingdom of Jesus on earth right now. Can you explain please?

God gives a lot of parables for us to understand what Kingdom of God is. I do not deny that Kingdom of God is not here. However, this is very different from God ruling this world by sitting on the throne of David, which is yet to happen. So, I need to be very careful in typing my answer to exactly say what I meant to say.

 

[felix]

I do not understand your point here.

Yes, Satan did rule the earth. But, as of the cross, Jesus rules the earth - remember that Jesus asserts that all authority on earth has already been given to Him. i see no argument here that supports the notion that Satan is "king" or "ruler" right now.

Can you explain how Jesus can already have all authority on earth and not be its king?

(1Cor 15:24) Then [comes] the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.

Jesus Christ has the authority but He hasn't made an end to all other authorities and powers yet.

 

[Drew]

God gives a lot of parables for us to understand what Kingdom of God is. I do not deny that Kingdom of God is not here. However, this is very different from God ruling this world by sitting on the throne of David, which is yet to happen. So, I need to be very careful in typing my answer to exactly say what I meant to say.

Thanks for the clarification. However, I maintain that Jesus is indeed ruling this world - I suggest the Scriptures are quite clear on this. I would agree, however, that this rule is not fully realized yet - it is a "work in progress" as in "he must rule until all enemies have been defeated".

So please do not misunderstand me - while I do assert that Jesus presently reigns, I fully acknowledge that this "kingship" has yet to reach its full flower of expression.

 

[Drew]

(1Cor 15:24) Then [comes] the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.

Jesus Christ has the authority but He hasn't made an end to all other authorities and powers yet.

Agree. However this does not mean that Jesus is not king right now - it means that that there are still elements of this world that have yet to recognize Jesus as king.

But this does not mean that He (Jesus) is not "fully" king right now. Barack Obama is "fully" the President even though there are a whole range of elements of American society that, rightly or wrongly, are not "submitting" to his role as head of government.

 

[Drew]

Because regardless of whether the word is "of" or "from", the same meaning is implied: Christ's kingdom did not come from this world and it is not of this world.

You obviously beg the question.

The argument is what it is and should be ignored. Again: the argument asserts that the translation "not of this world" is deeply misleading. The proper translation is "not from this world" - and this makes a huge difference. Why? Precisely because, and to use to use your own words:

The kingdom of God (heaven) comes "from" the Father and is "of" heaven.

....and yet, of course, this does not rule out what is otherwise clear from Scripture - the kingdom is for this world.

Maybe no one has ever challenged you on it because it's such a nit-picking complaint?

No.

I am quite sure that people are not dealing with the argument because it successfully undercuts one of the primary elements supporting the position that Jesus is not a present ruler of all elements of this world.

 

[Drew]

I Corinthians 15:44 "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body."

There is a natural body, which is your flesh body, and there is also a spiritual or soul body. The two are different and when the natural body, or flesh body dies the spiritual body is "raised", or in the Greek text "egiro, awakened, become active from its death". You have two bodies, one natural body contains your spiritual body, and that spiritual body is awakened to a new life, when the flesh or natural body dies and releases your soul.

You appear to simply presume that a 'spiritual body' is something non-physical.

I am confident you will not be able to support this position Biblically. And I politely suggest that you are importing a Greek "body-soul" dualism that was entirely foreign to those who wrote the Bible.

The Bilbe nowhere supports the notion of a 'soul' or 'spirit' that has the specific property of being the bearer of consciousness.

 

[Lehigh3]

(1Cor 15:24) Then [comes] the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.

Jesus Christ has the authority but He hasn't made an end to all other authorities and powers yet.

Ah, how do we find out what or who were the "rulers" & "authorities" in heavenly places Paul was referring to?
Eph.3:8-11 clarifies that Paul meant the Jewish powers, the stars of heaven & earth who had transgressed God's covenant. We also can know that Jesus was the Mediator of the new covenant. Mediating to whom? Positively Israel (Hebrews) That is the kingdom (the old covenant kingdom He came to fulfill & hand up to the Father)
Eph.3:8-11 NIV,
8 Although I am less than the least of all the Lord’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the boundless riches of Christ, 9 and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. 10 His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, 11 according to his eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The "ends of the ages" had come upon them. The rulers & authorities of Israel in heavenly places were defeated & a new heaven & earth where righteousness dwells came.

 

[felix]

Ah, how do we find out what or who were the "rulers" & "authorities" in heavenly places Paul was referring to?
Eph.3:8-11 clarifies that Paul meant the Jewish powers, the stars of heaven & earth who had transgressed God's covenant. We also can know that Jesus was the Mediator of the new covenant. Mediating to whom? Positively Israel (Hebrews) That is the kingdom (the old covenant kingdom He came to fulfill & hand up to the Father)
Eph.3:8-11 NIV,
8 Although I am less than the least of all the Lord’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the boundless riches of Christ, 9 and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. 10 His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, 11 according to his eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The "ends of the ages" had come upon them. The rulers & authorities of Israel in heavenly places were defeated & a new heaven & earth where righteousness dwells came.

How long will it take for you to realize that there is no death, nor sorrow, nor crying, no pain in new Jerusalem as in Rev 21:4?

 

[jasoncran]

it makes no sense for God to creat men for the earth then when sin enters in , just say oh well i am not going to redeem man and the earth. he didnt do that at the cross.

i would like to hear stormcrows view on the isiah prophecy on the animals at peace with a lad leading them.its kinda refering to an age to where the sin curse is gone.

 

[reba]

Isa 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
Isa 65:18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
Isa 65:19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.
Isa 65:20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.
Isa 65:21 And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.
Isa 65:22 They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
Isa 65:23 They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them.
Isa 65:24 And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.
Isa 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.

 

[jasoncran]

yes vs 25 thanks. that hasnt happened yet. i cant for the life me understand( i can understand rebas and vics and hitches partial positions) but if one is yecer and creationist then why does one take this prophecy in that part as spiritual?

didnt God say that sun.stars and all life was good? so ere sin the flesh and life was good.so he is just going to say well i am done with that. the question here is what he came to redeem? the nature of man condition(his soul and body) or just soul. where are both not just a soul.

heaven isnt meant for us nor was hell at first even meant for us.

 

[felix]

Isa 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
Isa 65:18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
Isa 65:19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.
Isa 65:20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.
Isa 65:21 And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.
Isa 65:22 They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
Isa 65:23 They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them.
Isa 65:24 And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.
Isa 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.

Isa 65:17-25 is not going to happen because according to the new covenant we have better promises.

(Heb 8:6) But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.

And, one of the better promises includes 'no death' as in Rev 21:4 compared to the Isa 65:20 promise.

 

[jasoncran]

really? where pray tell will we live? in heaven for ever and ever?

what do you think this is before? the new city coming the earth. i dont pretend to say its like the milleniasnt put out but that hasnt passed we still are ominvores not vegans.

God didnt make man nor animal to eat meat, sorry. i am not a vegan but that is in the word.

 

[felix]

the question here is what he came to redeem? the nature of man condition(his soul and body) or just soul. where are both not just a soul.

Ans: Just soul.

(Matt 10:28) "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

(Rev 20:4) And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then [I saw] the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received [his] mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

 

[jasoncran]

Ans: Just soul.

(Matt 10:28) "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

(Rev 20:4) And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then [I saw] the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received [his] mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

no the word for soul has seven connations in the ancient hebrew.one of them is the same word used for that which breathes. animals breathe.

i need to do a word study on that. the ot has seven and the nt has three.

and a third of the livins souls in the oceans died, was that referring to souless men in the ocean? or the fish.

the later is the case.as it refers to sea turning red.

 

[jasoncran]

if you are going to quote millenial scriptures to a millenialist at least get them right.

and the dead lived not again till after a thousand yrs, this is the first ressurection blessed is he that is in the first resserection ..

so they needed to be what again?if a soul only why is that stated?

 

[felix]

no the word for soul has seven connations in the ancient hebrew.one of them is the same word used for that which breathes. animals breathe.

i need to do a word study on that. the ot has seven and the nt has three.

and a third of the livins souls in the oceans died, was that referring to souless men in the ocean? or the fish.

the later is the case.as it refers to sea turning red.

In Greek, I am more confident what soul is:
(Matt 10:28) "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul (G5590 ψυχή psuche) and body in hell (G1067 γέεννα geenna).
In Hebrew, we have 3 Strong's: H5315, H7307, H2416 (not sure which one)
H5315 נֶפֶשׁ nephesh = breathing creature
H7307 רוַּח ruwach = wind, breath
H2416 חַי chay = alive, raw flesh

As in Matt 10:28, I am sure that soul (what God is referring) can only be destroyed in hell (geenna).

if you are going to quote millenial scriptures to a millenialist at least get them right.

and the dead lived not again till after a thousand yrs, this is the first ressurection blessed is he that is in the first resserection ..

so they needed to be what again?if a soul only why is that stated?

(Phil 3:20-21) For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself.

(1Cor 15:52-53) in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal [must] put on immortality.